TexasCHLforum.com

I'm hoping this is a fake April Fools story:

The office – led by Ken Paxton, a Republican – said in a letter dated Wednesday that the zoo qualifies as an amusement park. That’s an area where state law says the licensed carrying of handguns can be prohibited, so long as the proper notice is given.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... -ban.html/

The photo caption says:

The sign at Dallas Zoo entrance warning patrons not to bring guns into the zoo, hanging near the Member Services office at the entrance, photographed on Saturday, August 22, 2015. (Louis DeLuca/The Dallas Morning News)

No it doesn't. I tells them not to conceal their firearms.

All the more reason to remove amusement parks from the list of prohibited places.

Or just get of the whole list. That works too.

Does NOT appear to be April Fools joke, seems to be the real mccoy:

http://zoohoo.dallaszoo.com/2016/04/01/ ... y-general/

It's a conspiracy to make my shoulder hurt having to bear the weight of carrying my concealed rifle everywhere legally instead of using my training, background check and license to carry my handgun, which they've made illegal there as per Sec. 46.035 and 30.06/30.07....
Oh well, the 30 round Glock mag is easier to carry concealed with the rifle than it ever would be with my pistol...

Have not been there, but if it meets this definition, then I would have to agree:

1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

So if you are caught carrying there, it is a double violation 30.06 and 46.035

Guess I am now on the prosecute Paxton side......

Maybe if he is gone, Abbott can appoint someone better.

This is the consequence of failing to strip out hospitals, amusement parks, churches,. etc. in 46.035. Instead they were left in, and (i) was added.

Solaris wrote:Guess I am now on the prosecute Paxton side......

Maybe if he is gone, Abbott can appoint someone better.

Does the governor appoint or is there a special election? And anyway the charges against him are just as specious & politically motivated as the ones against Perry were until they were thrown out.

Wondering if there will be enough momentum in 2017 to do a few 2A "clean-up bills", including 46.035 ?

I agree with those who believe it is time for 46.035 to be struck.

This is very discouraging. I im not afraid of the monkies attacking i mainly carry for the parking lot adventure. A few months ago a terrorist was arested in houston, he was planning to blow up the galeria. Now, i would think that in a large public place that more people that could stop a guy with a bomb would be a good thing.
I am NOT looking forward to the day we can say, "I told you"!

As long as you don't enter any buildings, you wouldn't be violating 46.035, right? Definition of premises...

casp625 wrote:As long as you don't enter any buildings, you wouldn't be violating 46.035, right? Definition of premises...

no actually because 30.06 references property and that's the mechanism they are using under 46.035

JP171 wrote:

casp625 wrote:As long as you don't enter any buildings, you wouldn't be violating 46.035, right? Definition of premises...

no actually because 30.06 references property and that's the mechanism they are using under 46.035

Edit: thought the law said premises of an amusement park, it does not so I was wrong. States "in an amusement park."

To be honest, I was a little worried about the Dallas Zoo being able to successfully argue that they are an amusement park. Fort Worth and Houston Zoos are different and I think we will win those.

Do I think the Dallas Zoo is an amusement park - NO. Does it meet the current legal definition of one - sadly yes. I agree with Solaris:

Solaris wrote:This is the consequence of failing to strip out hospitals, amusement parks, churches,. etc. in 46.035. Instead they were left in, and (i) was added.

So this is on the legislature not the AG. Removing off limit areas and cleaning up 51% issues needs to be THE top priority next legislative session.